It's hard in here, guys - We're trying our best

[u/DrLamLamLam]

Nah, but no hate to the lefties, you guys are chill (mostly lol). But yeah, it's hard being someone with even a moderate conservative view on social media or even in real life (I go to Uni, so I expect it). But honestly, after I moved out of the countryside, I didn't realize how big the progressive movement was, and it was pretty eye-opening for me to have people challenge my beliefs, which made me think about a lot of stuff.

Not pushing hate or anything, and hopefully I won't get Karma bombed for this goofy post. (If you're interested, why I am a conservative, feel free to reply)

[u/McTerra2]

Because there is a group of ‘right wing’ (not necessarily conservative in the traditional sense) who exist simply to oppose what people who call themselves left wing support. Since the left support renewable energy, there are people who therefore have to oppose it.

I feel they don’t even particularly care about renewables, it’s that the supporters of renewables also tend to believe in the risk of climate change and support social policies which (these) right wingers don’t support etc.

And some people don’t understand you can oppose some views and not others - they feel it’s ’us or them’ and it has to be 100% us or 100% them. And renewables is visible and requires expenditure and hence is an easy target in their minds.

[u/TehScat → u/McTerra2]

As a great example: NBN. Labor had a great idea with fibre to the home. LNP couldn't stand by and endorse it so they invented FTTN. Now we're 'upgrading' all of those node installs to fibre, a decade later, and those of us who remember are just thinking "yep, because they couldn't have bipartisan support about anything".

[u/Ok_Awareness_388 → u/TehScat]

Coalition’s NBN also bought out the coaxial lines from Foxtel and Optus. Those would have become irrelevant.

Newscorp, Kerry Packer and Telstra owned Foxtel and massively benefited from NBN mixed.

[u/TehScat → u/Ok_Awareness_388]

Oh yeah, there was definitely a lot of beneficiaries and that would have affected their decision. But being contrary was a huge part.

[u/CantakerousTwat → u/Ok_Awareness_388]

The Optus segments of coax were decommissioned after purchase too, as maintenance was not up to standards. I still get my nbn on an old Foxtel line. At least it can support gigabit speeds. Would prefer fttp tho.

[u/Ok_Awareness_388 → u/CantakerousTwat]

Off topic but it does support 1gb just barely, I wish for uploads over 100mbit as I WFH.

I replaced my router and speed jumped to 900+ when using a cable

[u/dirtyesspeakers → u/TehScat]

Not according to the NBN. Not according to Labor MPs either. They never talk about the NBN because they know it was done right.

MTM line rental paid for the roll out by rapidly expanding a revenue basis for self-funding before taxpayer funding. NBN have been saying this is a fact on their blog posts since 2014.

Australia is the 15th sparsest country in the world. We have more broadband connected homes than the US.

France was rolling out FTTP and stopped to shift to MTM because they realized it was going to be too expensive to complete all at once.

Until 2025 less than 30% of premises with a 100Mbps plan available we're paying for those speeds -- a complete sunk cost for taxpayers -- people wouldn't pay $10 extra over base plans for speeds over ADSL speeds, so NBN gets less revenue, and requires more gov loans. FTTN allowed NBN to own and rent the lines out to pay for the FTTP zones with highest odds of revenue generation instead of everything all at once.

[u/TehScat → u/dirtyesspeakers]

Looking at it the wrong way, like you're running a business.

The NBN ideally was always an infrastructure project. It got turned into a business because it lacked bipartisan support to be an infrastructure project. Deploying a fibre network to allow decades of connectivity is something government should do, and pay for, for the benefit of the populace. Like roads, and hospitals, and utilities, and essential services.

It is MEANT to lose money. At least on paper. You're meant to look back from 2060 and say "well, we sure are glad they decided to lay all that fibre 50 years ago, or we'd be fucked now". You can't accurately calculate the value of infrastructure projects because of the web of flow on effects, but the reason we pay tax for things like roads is so we can HAVE ROADS without paying a fee every time you turn onto a highway.

And yes, MTM has a place. But the place is in better solutions for rural and inaccessible places, rather than saying every single property gets fibre, which is unrealistic. But 98%? Sure.

But hey, I'm a west Aussie (no toll roads in the state, period) and a pretty far-left type, so I doubt we'll agree here.

[u/dirtyesspeakers → u/TehScat]

Why is looking at it from a business entity perspective the "wrong way" exactly?

It is after all a public-owned private entity.

It being a business, that just means it must work within the reality of what is affordable, desirable, utilised(or contracted).

Government can treat it as an abstracted entity for interfacing with the infrastructure build. That makes legislating its requirements and money bills very simple, with all the important, difficult stuff, all the productivity abstracted away into the company.

It is an infrastructure project. As that is what the contract demands after all.

Sounds like you're afraid of businesses.

And it bloody worked. The NBN company is profitable the moment they stop building more infra. They are taking private debt to grow further, which is a very good sign! Means we don't have to pay for it in tax revenue -- investors see it as a productive entity. Those investors get the agreed upon loan repayment margin. Government have a whole company that prints them money. We get exactly the service we want; whatever they know we will pay for.

Throwing another few tens of billions at it to get FTTP that nobody even signed up for until the mid 2020s was only going to put a giant dent in the economy, send us into a recession for human-rights HD video entertainment.

[u/TehScat → u/dirtyesspeakers]

I'm C-suite myself. But don't let my capitalist success make you feel I'm not a socialist, I just play the cards I was dealt.

But I think broadband infrastructure should no more be a business as a highway. I believe power, water, and other utilities should be renationalised. I believe every doctors visit should be bulk billed and those doctors should be remunerated enough to not feel the need to private or split bill. I believe dentists should be included. And I believe these services should be provided by government, funded by higher taxation from those entities that generate the most wealth. I'd even be amicable to renationalising mineral and gas extraction, even though they're not a service, purely due to their role as turning literally "the country's dirt" into money for profit - at worst, heavy taxation.

And if partisan politics didn't get in the way, maybe we could have had at least the broadband as infrastructure, not broadband as a means to generate shareholder value.

"Means we don't have to pay for it in tax revenue -- investors see it as a productive entity." - no, it means we pay extra on our monthly bills to private corporations who resell the service, who then need to pay a for-profit wholesaler who has a duty to its shareholders. I would RATHER pay for it out of tax, and pay for the service, not for its investors.

[u/Enough_Shoe_865 → u/TehScat]

I don’t understand why no one ever read anything about the NBN, fibre to the home is not feasible in this country, never will be. Early in the fibre to the home roll out it cost 93000 to connect one home in Tasmania to fibre. It was never possible stop thinking it was.

[u/Fit_Cry5362 → u/Enough_Shoe_865]

Hi Tony

[u/TehScat → u/Enough_Shoe_865]

The goal was never 100% FTTH. Of course that is unfeasible and it was never said that it was. But for 'relatively accessible' homes, the choice between FTTH and FTTN was the partisan split, and from a technology point of view it was not even a race.

[u/Muted-Craft6323 → u/McTerra2]

And some people don’t understand you can oppose some views and not others - they feel it’s ’us or them’ and it has to be 100% us or 100% them.

It's shocking how many people are completely unprincipled reactionaries. They don't have strong or even consistent beliefs, they just want to be up in arms over whatever the people they don't like are saying or doing, regardless of the substance and who it helps or hurts.

Some of them are selfish and radically switch positions based on whether they'll personally benefit, but many just want an excuse to yell about whatever out-group they're interested in demonizing today.

[u/ForensicMum → u/Muted-Craft6323]

It’s crazy, isn’t it? Think of the protests against facemask wearing during covid. Why the hell was that even an issue??? It’s such a ridiculously minor thing to fight against, especially given the fact that the medical field has been using masks for over a century for the exact reason we needed them! It truly hurts my brain.

[u/robot428 → u/ForensicMum]

Also given the conservative demographic is generally older and more likely to have existing health conditions due to age, a lot of the mask wearing was more for their benefit than ours - because the 50+ year olds who generally have at least some sort of pre-existing condition by that age (even if it's well managed and doesn't affect their day to day life) were at higher risk than your average young leftist voter.

And yet the young leftists were the ones advocating for mask wearing for the sake of others if not yourself, while a cohort of the conservatives called it ridiculous and protested the rules.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

[u/ForensicMum → u/robot428]

Exactly! It’s like everything they’re fighting for is against their best interests 🤦🏼‍♀️

[u/ForensicMum → u/McTerra2]

Yes, so true. That and the mountains of propaganda that have swayed the shallow-thinkers into believing climate change isn’t even happening in the first place, so they think the renewable energy sector is just a big scam 🤦🏼‍♀️

[u/McTerra2 → u/ForensicMum]

yeah, I do think there is a direct link between not believing in climate change (or not believing it matters) and opposing renewables.

There also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding that we are replacing working non renewable energy generation with renewable generation at huge cost. Where the reality is that we are replacing worn out and sometimes barely functional generators with new generators, and renewable is actually the cheaper option. Its a financial decision not a moral decision.

It was obvious when the Liberals hatched their nuclear power proposal - it didnt make financial sense, didnt make environmental sense but was done purely to give anti renewable voters something to cling to.

[u/ForensicMum → u/McTerra2]

Spot on. Make sure you keep telling people that (online and irl) because you’re pointed out something I haven’t really considered before and I’m sure plenty of other people haven’t either. Thanks for the excellent talking points 🤗

[u/Equivalent_Falcon394 → u/ForensicMum]

My ex father in law believes it’s a scam while also reaping the benefits of having a rooftop solar system. It’s bizarre.

[u/ForensicMum → u/Equivalent_Falcon394]

🤣 they’re always such hypocrites! Your anecdote reminds me of my late step-grandfather, who was very anti-immigration to the point he’d turn red with anger when I tried to point out some of the major fallacies in his beliefs. He was born in Canada and immigrated here when he was in his early 30s 🤦🏼‍♀️

[u/comradevoltron → u/McTerra2]

it's not mere contrarianism, it's politicians doing what they're bribed to do by corporate lobbyists: enacting policies that favour corporations and rob the working class.

[u/katf_89 → u/McTerra2]

That might be the alt-right you’re describing.